DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 1, 2-7, 7, 7-8 of U.S. Patent No.12, 028, 828. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are part of the claim limitations recited in the U.S. Patent No.12, 028, 828.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao)(US 2022/0329996) in view of Seed et al. (hereinafter Seed)(US 2026/0095820).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a method for managing a location of a mission critical (MC) gateway user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication network, the method (P[0039], mission critical; Fig. 4) comprising: receiving, from a MC client(item 501 A in Fig. 4), a management server location reporting configuration request containing a triggering criteria associated with change of 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP) access network related location information, identifying whether a location reporting event has occurred based on the Server location reporting configuration request; and transmitting, to the MC client, a Server location information report in case that the location reporting event has occurred(Fig. items S510(location reporting trigger) , S520 and S530)(location information report to the client; P[0085], decision to report location information can be triggered at the client by various conditions or events tracking area change, cell change, PMN change, MBMS SAI change(change of 3GPP related location information)).
Zhao did not teach specifically receiving information from a MC client by a MC gateway (GW). However, Ge teaches in an analogous art receiving information from a MC client by a MC gateway (GW)(Ge: items S402 and S403 in Fig. 4). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of receiving, from a MC client by a MC gateway (GW) ([0009] In a first possible implementation of the first aspect, the sending, by the MC client, a first message to an LMS includes: [0010] sending, by the MC client, the first information to the LMS through an MC server) in order to have improved efficiency.
Zhao did not teach specifically receiving information from a MC client by a MC gateway and monitoring whether a location reporting event has occurred based on the MC GW location reporting configuration request; and transmitting, to the MC client, a MC GW location information report including location information requested by the MC client in case that the location reporting event has occurred wherein the MC client resides on a non-3GPP device. However, Ge teaches in an analogous art receiving information from a MC client by a MC gateway and monitoring whether a location reporting event has occurred based on the MC GW location reporting configuration request; and transmitting, to the MC client, a MC GW location information report including location information requested by the MC client in case that the location reporting event has occurred wherein the MC client resides on a non-3GPP device (step 7-step 9 in Fig. 20B also P[0172-0176]; P[0172], [0172], to monitor and track the location of UE along a route; P[0173], EAHC may request that the 3GPPP network track the UE’s movement; EAHS determines that an EAH required may trigger and assist other entities in the system with performing EAH operation (step 9)). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of receiving information from a MC client by a MC gateway and monitoring whether a location reporting event has occurred based on the MC GW location reporting configuration request; and transmitting, to the MC client, a MC GW location information report including location information requested by the MC client in case that the location reporting event has occurred wherein the MC client resides on a non-3GPP device in order to have improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao in view of Seed teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the MC client, a location information report, and transmitting, to a location management server (LMS), the received location information report(Zhao: items S710, S720 in Fig. 7; Ge: items S402 and S403 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the MC GW location reporting configuration request(P[0087], stores location reporting event triggers configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the MC GW location reporting configuration request includes at least one of a GW MC service identifier (ID), requested location information, triggering criteria, and minimum time between location information reports(P[0085], location reporting configuration ).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao in view of Seed teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the MC GW location information report includes at least one of a GW MC service ID, a triggering event, and requested location information(Zhao: P[0085], triggered by events; emergency or other type events; Service area ID change(SAI change).
Claims 7-11 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-5 respectively.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao)(US 2022/0329996) in view of Seed et al. (hereinafter Seed)(US 2026/0095820) and Jeong et al. (hereinafter Jeong)(EP 3249977 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao in view of Seed teaches all the particulars of the claim except receiving, from the MC client, the MC GW location reporting configuration request without any information element, in case that the MC GW location information report is no longer required. However, Jeong teaches in an analogous art receiving, from the MC client, the MC GW location reporting configuration request without any information element, in case that the MC GW location information report is no longer required(Jeong: claim 1; information elements of current configuration, information changed from network system; without including information elements). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method of receiving, from the MC client, the MC GW location reporting configuration request without any information element, in case that the MC GW location information report is no longer required in order to have improved uncertainty.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5515. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-3:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUTHUSWAMY G MANOHARAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
